I did my old, "EDIT TOO MUCH" trick again. I was in the middle of editing it when you posted. (No worries though)

I'm a perfectionist and when I want to talk religion or politics, I revise so much. I want to get it right.... Anyway, I'm happy with my last one and will keep it. I just changed a few things at the end, and am trying to be a more forceful and confident writer and still not offend... (hard to do).

MAKER wrote:I don't mean to nit-pic, but isn't the big bang still just a theory? Albeit the leading theory that has the most accepted evidence in support. Not trying to be contradicting to facts, but isn't it a possibility that it could turn out to be partially, or in the extreme completely, false in light of new evidence?

It is a theory but not in our quotidian sense of the word. A scientific theory is different in that it is backed up by a lot of calculations and observations. If the scientific theory survives the test of time, then it is a good one - especially when it can be applied successfully in improving the quality of our lives. And some scientific theories are so obvious that you might as well regard them as facts, i.e. gravity, evolution, Hubble's law etc. The Big Bang has overwhelming evidence to back it up, too. The most famous evidence for it is the cosmic background radiation. And let's not forget that a good theory often leads to predictions which are later confirmed to be true by scientists. Example: A Higgs field was predicted and later detected.

Scientists have an equivalent for our quotidian use of the word "theory," too. It's called a hypothesis (inferior to the scientific theory and still requires a lot of work). Science follows the evidence. In other words, the current paradigm is in accordance to where we've got so far. It is not about beliefs or dogmas. Scientific studies are constantly reviewing themselves in light of new evidence and discoveries. So far the Big Bang theory appears to be solid so there is no reason to believe otherwise. The current paradigm would shift, however, if a compelling contraposition was presented - and one that would have to be contiguous, I'd imagine, in accordance to what has already been established from observation.

MAKER wrote: consciousness is still a mystery to science. There's many explanations, hypothesis, and theories, but no concrete knowledge of how/why/what/when consciousness came to be.

Again, this is no reason to presuppose consciousness as the eternal source of, or the quintessence of, the physical universe. (Especially when the evidence seems to weigh in favour of the opposite - seriously, take a look at what neuroscience has accomplished over a century and a half.)

MAKER wrote:What constitutes life?

SPONCH = Sulphur, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon (mostly), hydrogen. Complexly arranged, of course. We need these elements in order to produce life as we know it.

MAKER wrote:Humanity has achieved much knowledge, but wouldn't it be a tiny bit on the arrogant side to claim to know concretely how things have come to be without full knowledge of the universe?

Scientists don't claim to know concretely how the universe came about (although they can come up with scenarios more substantial and credible than the religious assertion that a god magically created the universe). They have great theories which are based on everything that we have been able to measure so far. A true scientist that claims certainty about something better have the full facts to justify his certainty - in which case it would not be arrogant of him to claim to know something.

They can claim to know what happens in experiments that have been conducted, for example, because these can be verified. The latest combination of cosmology and physics paints the picture that the universe arose from nothing because nothingness is quantum mechanically unstable and the potential for expansion is too great. So, from this, we can gather that no gods or deities are required to bring about the cosmos. In fact, it would have taken a miracle to have prevented the universe from popping into being (all according to what we do understand so far). So, since we are here, no miracle took place and nothing willed us into being. It all inevitably popped out of nothing. (See Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss for an in depth introduction of this picture.)

MAKER wrote:If everything was known and completely understood, there would be no further research to be had, but truthfully, there is much more to be known about this mystery we were all thrown into. Again, I'm not an intellectual elite...but I sure love to piggy back the ideas of all the smart MF-ers . Even if they are wrong, some stuff is still fun to toss around in the ol' noggin.

They are just being professional and avoiding beliefs or premature conclusions. The observable universe is mostly made of dark matter, something they are still trying to suss out. Scientists are very open about the puzzles they are currently working on. There is no room for pretending to know more than what they understand. The scientific community quickly weeds out the pseudo-scientists with peer reviews.

MAKER wrote:...but isn't it still trying to be understood completely by leading scientists/physicists? I'm open to the possibility that it will at least usher in a new way of looking at consciousness, so that maybe a new approach will bring in a more sound understanding. We have come a long way in the past 100years, I can only imagine what the next 1000 years will bring to light.

Quantum theory is successfully applied in many areas of our lives but it is true that the nature of reality at its roots is not fully understood. You often hear physicists say, "we don't understand how it works but it works" or "shut up and calculate." It is possible that quantum mechanics play their role in the phenomenon of consciousness. We don't quite know how gravity works at the quantum level either. Give it time. We have come a long way, as you have pointed out, in the last 100 years, so, we do deserve credit.

MAKER wrote:In reference to my experience, when I was near to passing out and had the assumption that I was going to kick the bucket right there on that hotel bathroom floor, why did that feeling of overwhelming peace rush over me?

My best guess is that your endorphins kicked in. Something to do with your inherent aptitude responsible for the galvanisation of your reward system under extremely stressful or traumatic situations. People can experience this when they take drugs like heroin, ecstasy, or even psilocybin. Meditation and lucid dreaming can also produce similar effects.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

MAKER wrote:I've had a dry spell lately, and not even my trusty McDILD method has been fruitful . I've been setting bedtime intentions for even a regular dream with some sort of relation to the topic, but nada as of yet.

I'm curious how long your definition of 'dry spell' is. Before the lucid dream I had yesterday, it was 9 days without one. To me that's normal. How long has it been for you?

Summerlander wrote:SPONCH = Sulphur, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon (mostly), hydrogen. Complexly arranged, of course. We need these elements in order to produce life as we know it.

How do you define 'life'? I believe you can create an insect-like robot, or even a bacteria-like nanobot, that senses it's environment, reacts to it, and makes replicas of itself with slight 'errors' or mutations. Set it loose in the wild and it will evolve in time, perhaps even forming colonies. It should, in theory, act like any other simple life form and perhaps in time even develop self awareness. But it is not made of SPONCH. (It would be a great science-fiction premise)

That's just physical life. If you created an artificial intelligence without a body it too may be considered 'alive', and even have a will to live like HAL 9000. (2001: A Space Odyssey)

Summerlander wrote:SPONCH = Sulphur, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon (mostly), hydrogen. Complexly arranged, of course. We need these elements in order to produce life as we know it.

HAGART wrote:How do you define 'life'? I believe you can create an insect-like robot, or even a bacteria-like nanobot, that senses it's environment, reacts to it, and makes replicas of itself with slight 'errors' or mutations. Set it loose in the wild and it will evolve in time, perhaps even forming colonies. It should, in theory, act like any other simple life form and perhaps in time even develop self awareness. But it is not made of SPONCH.

That's the idea I was getting after (Although I may have not articulated it well). Life as we know it is limited to the scope of Earth (so far), so there is only speculation left, but by no means is that a definitive conclusion of life.

There is already AI at present, albeit rudimentary and limited to the scope of present software planning. Soon, technology will surpass the intelligence of the average man, and then eventually far past the total of mankind...at least that's the direction that technology is heading, and the idea that Hagart has put forth will not be in the realm of science fiction.

But to push the envelope further, could it not be possible that there is already life in the universe that does not adhere to the Earth structure of SPONCH? I said this earlier, and although unproven and possibly far from fact, but couldn't the planets have some sort of "life" or consciousness that mankind has yet to understand? The Earth being a live being (just for conversation sake), couldn't all Earth life be likened to it's cells, water likened to blood, etc. etc.?

Summerlander wrote:The current paradigm would shift, however, if a compelling contraposition was presented - and one that would have to be contiguous, I'd imagine, in accordance to what has already been established from observation.

I agree, in theory, but not necessarily in practice. Other theories that do have creed often take time to be assimilated. There is much profit in the accepted paradigm, and those with power within this paradigm do adhere to self-preservation, as would any rational human being... such as careers, reputation, etc. I am NOT saying that new research does not go unnoticed or arbitrarily thrown out, but there is often a lot of headway for new research to overcome first.

Summerlander wrote:Again, this is no reason to presuppose consciousness as the eternal source of, or the quintessence of, the physical universe. (Especially when the evidence seems to weigh in favour of the opposite - seriously, take a look at what neuroscience has accomplished over a century and a half.)

Very valid point; do not presuppose. But be open to this coming forth through further research. All possibilities, in essence, should be allowed they're due process. Again, I'm not arguing for or against, but rather stating that there are plenty of possibilities and probabilities to be considered.

Summerlander wrote:My best guess is that your endorphins kicked in. Something to do with your inherent aptitude responsible for the galvanisation of your reward system under extremely stressful or traumatic situations.

Thank you for your opinion. I too figured it had to be some sort of biological defense. I know this may sound a tad bit morbid, but my curiosity was also peaked in the extreme. I didn't want to die, but I was ok with it because of that peaceful feeling...and very curious to witness the process that unfolded after, whether there was some sort of experience after or not.

HAGART wrote:I'm curious how long your definition of 'dry spell' is.

About a month and a half! After the new year, I was participating in dream experiments and my LD went through the roof, but stopped around late March, early April, and now nothing. Although, to be honest, I have not been keeping up with LD methods until recently.

OK, I admit. That's a dry spell! I'd have frustration too. I'm still unable to give advice when it's a hit or miss even for myself. I was just wondering about that, and you have every right to call it a dry-spell.

I think I said this earlier, but when you think about it, the Earth is a macrocosm of life itself that infested it. The universe is a fractal, and there are patterns in the minuscule that perpetuate into the macro-scale. Why would life exist at all if it doesn't exist everywhere?

You can compare a bacteria to a human and say one is more sentient, but it's such a fine line, and where does one end and the other begin when bacteria live inside what we call 'us', and oxygen is constantly being absorbed and shedded back into the 'in between area' of organisms (the 'universe', but it's still trapped on this planet) and carbon dioxide is re-absorbed like the earth is a giant intestine. Maybe we're are all in the gut of a giant whale known as Earth... (Got poetic )

That's my rant for the day. I like getting this off my chest and having fun with it.

HAGART wrote:How do you define 'life'? I believe you can create an insect-like robot, or even a bacteria-like nanobot, that senses it's environment, reacts to it, and makes replicas of itself with slight 'errors' or mutations. Set it loose in the wild and it will evolve in time, perhaps even forming colonies. It should, in theory, act like any other simple life form and perhaps in time even develop self awareness. But it is not made of SPONCH. (It would be a great science-fiction premise)

That's just physical life. If you created an artificial intelligence without a body it too may be considered 'alive', and even have a will to live like HAL 9000. (2001: A Space Odyssey)

Could we say that the robots mimmick life rather than defining them as a new form of life? What is life? What is this weird concept born out of our minds? We have obviously made distinctions based on how much we have been able to perceive, but, how well have we defined life? Is life always conscious? What is consciousness? How can we even study it when we can't even agree on what it is? Just some food for thought here, guys!

MAKER wrote:But to push the envelope further, could it not be possible that there is already life in the universe that does not adhere to the Earth structure of SPONCH? I said this earlier, and although unproven and possibly far from fact, but couldn't the planets have some sort of "life" or consciousness that mankind has yet to understand? The Earth being a live being (just for conversation sake), couldn't all Earth life be likened to it's cells, water likened to blood, etc. etc.?

Perhaps this universe is nothing but a tiny cell which belongs to something larger (whether this thing is alive or not). The universe is definitely headed for extinction, so, it is possible that we may live inside an dying creature - if this one isn't dead and decaying already!

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Summerlander wrote:Could we say that the robots mimmick life rather than defining them as a new form of life? What is life? What is this weird concept born out of our minds? We have obviously made distinctions based on how much we have been able to perceive, but, how well have we defined life? Is life always conscious? What is consciousness? How can we even study it when we can't even agree on what it is? Just some food for thought here, guys!

I had a reflective afternoon looking at dandelions. Most think they are a weed, but never truly understand them. I noticed that some had flowered with yellow pedals and others made that sphere of white cotton ball we all know about. And you blow on it and watch the white 'parachutes' float through the air. But have you ever truly looked at it and examined it? OR how it transitions from one to the other seemingly overnight? There were others in between that state that I picked apart and dissected with my hands, just having fun, but I realized something I have kept saying and will say it again.

ALL LIFE IS AN ALGORITHM. (Brain activity, or not, is moot. It's secondary.)

I can still find beauty in it, but it's so mathematical it is like a program! (Follow it down the line and hence, I too, like it or not, am a program as well.)

Designed by cause and effect, not a superior programmer. Or if there was, I'd like to have a good chat and come up with the Beta Version 2, because the first one had some flaws!

But what came first? The chicken or the egg, life or mathematics? It's hard to answer and I am not the first person to question it. Absloute 0, or death, is hard to define when we are 1. (If you catch my drift).

Zero is complete and perhaps 1 is the loneliest number... poetic song.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

So I've been thinking on this discussion trying to collect my thoughts about this and that, and I came across some Alan Watts the other day and I've been pondering a new idea lately... No matter the point of view, we are the universe and the universe is us.

According to the big bang theory (not the hit TV show ), the universe started from a (the?) singularity, but became unstable and burst forth all that we can observe today. Without the ecosystem, there would be no us. Without the Earth, there would be no ecosystem. Without the solar system, there would be no Earth. Without the the universe, there would be no galaxy for our solar system to thrive. Etc. etc.

From this standpoint, couldn't it be argued that the universe is conscious, even if only through us and other conscious sentient beings? I was watering my vegetable garden earlier and was thinking how this would relate to death, and I found a little bit of solace to understand that when we die, we don't necessarily "go somewhere." Rather, we return to the universe (in the sense that our bodies become compost, since we are not and cannot be separate from the universe). Whether or not we remain conscious in someway is debatable and cannot yet be verified, except through the personal experience of death.

This reminded me of the saying "we are all one." I never fully understood it and kind of thought of the saying as some spiritual phrase of generality, but from the standpoint that we quite literally are the universe, although having a seemingly separate experience, we are "one" with it.

Some questions to ponder:

HAGART wrote:ALL LIFE IS AN ALGORITHM.

Evidence supports this, but who/what made the program for this to be the case? Could the algorithm change over time? (a type of mathematical evolution)

Summerlander wrote:Perhaps this universe is nothing but a tiny cell which belongs to something larger (whether this thing is alive or not).

If we are "alive" (even if we are robots, we have some form of life), then the universe is alive in the sense of the idea I stated previously. It lives through us, and us through it.

And here's a fun one to think about, where are you? (physically, not the "I" we discussed earlier) Where is the Earth?The galaxy?All in the universe, right? But where is the universe?If there were other universes, then we could only say in relation to those other universes, but where would those be?

Aparently scientists have detected gravitational waves from the Big Bang which appear to indicate that the power of inflation was so great that, in all likelihood, it must have produced innumerable "bubble" universes. (One wonders if this was a symptom of a titanic organism growing - perhaps we live inside some creature's expanding brain!)

The recent discovery about the gravitational reverberations have been published online by National Geographic. And it gets weirder: not only is it quite possible that we live in an ocean of bubble universes, which, if its space-time fabric is infinite in all directions with a finite range of possible ways in which particles can manifest dictate that replicas of you and your entire life must emerge (so much for finding meaning in coincidences on our petty little planet!), it gets weirder: at the quantum level all possible scenarios appear to play out before the superpositions are decohered by measurement - which implies many versions of our own universe occurring locally (every time you are faced with a selection of choices you are facing "daughter" universes.

This incredible multiversal circus, believe it or not, is gaining credibility and reminds us of how insignificant we really are. If you are religious, or superstitious, and believe that coincidences have some transcendental or supernatural meaning, like a divine sign or a message, prepare to have your delusions shattered along with your exalted ego: somewhere, somewhen, parsecs far far away, the Earth and its lifetime have been replicated to the minutest detail - not because a higher intelligent power decided upon this, but because the laws of nature and probability make the noneventuation of such an impossibility when infinity comes into play. It's random and deterministic at the same time, and, last but not least, natural.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."